Dumontis

Building Autonomy in Continual Improvement

Supply Chain

This is the third and last post in a series of three about knowing whether you are on your way to perfect flow. The better your flow, the more profitable your business will be and the more returns it will deliver. But how to know where you stand in terms of flow? And how to evaluate whether you progressed? This series of three post tries to develop two measures – flow velocity and flow smoothness – as the way to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow. In this third post, I will focus on flow smoothness to complement the flow velocity measure discussed in the second post.(more…)

There are many approaches and methods that focus on improving flow. And for good reason, as improving flow yields improved profitability and returns. But how, in fact, can we determine our level of “flow”? In the first post, the typical ‘flow rate’ measure turned out to be unsuitable to do so. In this second post in a series of three, I therefore introduce flow velocity as a first measure to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow.(more…)

There are many approaches and methods that focus on improving flow. Material Requirements Planning (MRP), Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR) or Simplified-DBR (SDBR), Demand-Driven MRP (DDMRP), Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) and of course Lean’s comprehensive Just-in-Time (JIT) approach share the same objective. In comparing these approaches, however, discussions often concentrate on their inner workings. But they often lack an operationalization of the concept of “flow” which they intend to improve. This series of three post tries to develop two measures – flow velocity and flow smoothness – as the way to evaluate the level of and the progress towards flow.(more…)

Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning, or DDMRP in short, promises to be the first real innovation to MRP since the invention of MRP. Furthermore, in one of its white papers, the Demand Driven Institute states that “Lean Finds a Friend in DDMRP” (2011). DDMRP is positioned as integrating Lean, the Theory of Constraints (TOC) as well as Six Sigma whilst fundamentally innovating the traditional MRP (and DRP) planning approach. What I think of it? Some parts are OK, but most of it still has nothing to do with Lean. In a series of two posts of which this is the second (the first can be found here), I’ll try to explain my views and hope this may help you and your company in making the right decision when looking at your values, your thinking, your philosophy and your strategies.(more…)

Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning, or DDMRP in short, promises to be the first real innovation to MRP since the invention of MRP. Furthermore, in one of its white papers, the Demand Driven Institute states that “Lean Finds a Friend in DDMRP” (2011). DDMRP is positioned as integrating Lean, the Theory of Constraints (TOC) as well as Six Sigma whilst fundamentally innovating the traditional MRP (and DRP) planning approach. What I think of it? Some parts are OK, but most of it still has nothing to do with Lean. In a series of two posts (the second one of this series you can find here), I’ll try to explain my views and hope this may help you and your company in making the right decision when looking at your values, your thinking, your philosophy and your strategies.(more…)

Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM) is touted as the answer to Lean for hi-mix, lo-volume environments typically encountered in SMEs like job shops or machine builders. Personally, after having read the book and some papers about QRM, I got interested in QRM for the management of make-to-order products along make-to-stock fast movers, typically managed with the more traditional, anonymous or product-specific kanban (see also an earlier post on pull upstream and downstream op the order penetration point). So when Rajan Suri, Mr. QRM himself, was in the Netherlands last week, I took the opportunity and enrolled in a two-day workshop on QRM with him. Expectations were high, but although QRM does propose some interesting tools, overall it was somewhat disappointing. A post on what to expect and what not to expect from QRM.(more…)

Delivery reliability; there hardly is a company that is not measuring this in one way or another. After all, we all want and need to be customer-oriented, right? Measuring our delivery reliability should enable us to check the achievement of our objectives and taking the proper improvement actions if required.

But this does mean that our measurement should be done thoughtfully. It should represent what we want to achieve and lead to the right, relevant actions. Unfortunately, we don’t often even exactly know what it is what we measure let alone whether this reflects well what our customer is expecting from us. Our measurement may even lead to totally undesirable behavior if we don’t watch out.(more…)

Kanban implementations are often disappointing and short lived. Companies are promised better service, lower inventories and level demand. But more often the system is abandoned after a short period as it has turned the shop floor into chaos… What went wrong?(more…)

When you have been working on improving flow across the value stream, I am sure you have come across a situation where customers seem to order infrequently and erratically. We do our best and level the demand using the principle of heijunka, but still, this increases inventory and lead time. As a supplier, we definitely would love to see customers that order in short and regular intervals with little variability in demand. But we seem to be having a hard time getting our commercial teams and customers on board on our Lean journey…

How strange things are on “the other side of the building”. When we, as a customer this time, are trying to improve the flow of purchased parts and materials, we are often confronted with suppliers that are opposing the move towards highly frequent deliveries. And we are having a hard time getting them and our purchase teams along on our Lean journey…

Now isn’t that funny in a sense? We, as a Lean supplier would love to have level demand and deliver frequently. But our suppliers don’t seem to be willing… And we, as a Lean customer, we would love our supplier to deliver more frequently. But our customers don’t seem to be willing… How come that we, in both roles, want these things, but at the same time can’t seem to get our suppliers and customers along?(more…)

End of 2014, early 2015, Christoph Roser wrote an interesting series of posts about leveling and heijunka that already triggered me at the time, as I have personally been involved in many leveling, pull flow, kanban and EPEI initiatives during my career. And although in many cases I can align myself with Christoph’s views, in some aspects I don’t think his posts have done justice to the way in which leveling, pull, EPEI and the one-piece flow ambition can actually work together. Only recently, however, I have taken the time to put my thoughts on paper. Bear with me, as this post is more technical and longer than my typical posts.(more…)